Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Appellant Altrua HealthShare appealed the district court's decision affirming the Idaho Department of Insurance's (Department) determination that Altrua transacted insurance without a certificate of authority. Altrua argued that both the Department and the Ada County district court erred in finding that Altrua was an insurer because Altrua never assumed the risk of paying its members' medical bills. The Department found, and the district court affirmed, that when members make their predetermined monthly payments into the escrow account Altrua operates, the risk of payment shifts from the individual members to the escrow account, and in turn to Altrua. Altrua also contended that the Department's determination that it is an insurer despite the disclaimers in its membership contract to the contrary is an unconstitutional interference with Altrua's right to contract. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the Department's conclusion that Altrua's membership contract was an insurance contract was clearly erroneous, and reversed the findings. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Altrua Healthshare v. Deal" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Adriana Berneike appealed the district court’s dismissal of her Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), Utah Consumer Sales Protection Act (UCSPA), and breach of contract claims asserted against CitiMortgage, Inc. (Citi). In 2010, Plaintiff faxed twenty-eight different letters to Citi, her mortgage loan servicer, asserting that Citi was incorrectly billing her for overcharges and improper fees. She faxed a two more rounds of different letters, insisting Citi was overcharging her. Citi replied that Plaintiff's account was correct and that taxes and an escrow shortage caused billing fluctuation. Several months later, Plaintiff sent a third round of fort-seven different letters to Citi claiming billing errors. Altogether, Plaintiff faxed more than one hundred letters to Citi, and claimed that despite paying in full every bill she received, she continued to be overcharged and was facing foreclosure and bankruptcy. Plaintiff then filed suit in Utah state court. Among other damages, she sought $1,000 per violation of RESPA. Citi removed the case to federal court, and the court subsequently granted Citi's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims. Finding that the federal court did not err by dismissing Plaintiff's claims, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. View "Berneike v. CitiMortgage, Inc." on Justia Law

Respondents Christopher Roinestad and Gerald Fitz-Gerald were overcome by poisonous gases while cleaning a grease clog in a sewer near the Hog's Breath Saloon & Restaurant. The district court concluded that Hog's Breath caused respondents' injuries by dumping substantial amounts of cooking grease into the sewer thereby creating the clog and consequent build up of the gas. On summary judgment, the district court found the saloon liable under theories of negligence and off-premises liability and granted respondents damages. The saloon carried a commercial general liability policy issued by Petitioner Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company which sought a ruling it had no duty to indemnify Hog's Breath. The district court agreed that under the terms of the policy, the insurer had no duty under a pollution exclusion clause. The appellate court reversed the ruling in favor of the insurer, finding the pollution exclusion clause was ambiguous and that its application to cooking grease (a common waste product) could lead to absurd results and negate essential coverage. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the saloon released enough grease to amount to a discharge of a pollutant, and that the insurance policy pollution exclusion clause barred coverage in this case. View "Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company v. Roinestad" on Justia Law

Glenn Mosell was a commercial real estate broker in investment sales and a land developer who owned about 290 acres of property in Canyon County. He planned to develop this property and other land that he had an option to purchase into a destination resort which would include, among other things, resort-based residences; a state-of-the-art winery; a luxury 4-star boutique hotel; a world class day spa; a gourmet restaurant; an event and business conference center; polo fields; an equestrian center; a sporting and athletic club; and an amphitheater for music events and concerts. He contacted restaurateur John Berryhill to see if he would be interested in building the restaurant in the development. Berryhill was the owner and president of Berryhill & Company, which operated a restaurant and catering business. Berryhill agreed to participate in the proposed development, but not to build the restaurant. In 2007, Berryhill & Company signed a lease of space in downtown Boise in order to move his restaurant from a strip mall to that space. Mosell and Berryhill both signed a personal guaranty of Berryhill & Company's obligations under the lease. Berryhill & Company then began making tenant improvements to the leased property. Mosell Equities paid Berryhill & Company by check. The word "loan" was written on the memo line of the check. Over the next ten months, Mosell Equities issued nine additional checks to Berryhill & Company, each had the word "loan" written on the memo line except for two. The restaurant opened in August 2007. Because of the economic downturn, Mosell decided not to proceed with the polo project and did not launch the intended sales effort in 2008. Later that year, Mosell Equities stopped paying the rent on additional space, and Mosell and Berryhill ended their relationship. In 2009, Mosell Equities filed suit against Berryhill & Company on multiple claims: (1) breach of an express contract; (2) breach of an implied contract; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) conversion; (5) fraud; and (6) piercing the corporate veil. The case was tried to a jury, and the verdict was in favor of Berryhill. Mosell moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict citing insufficient evidence, and the district court granted that motion. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court erred in concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict, and that the district court erred in granting the motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Mosell Equities v. Berryhill & Co." on Justia Law

Sharp, a federal supply contractor, submitted a termination compensation claim to the Department of the Army contracting officer, and later brought a Contracts Dispute Act claim before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, claiming that, because the Army failed to exercise the entirety of the last option year under a delivery order, Sharp was entitled to premature discontinuance fees under its General Services Administration schedule contract. The ASBCA dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that the Federal Acquisition Regulation, does not permit ordering agency contracting officers to decide disputes pertaining to schedule contracts. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Under FAR 8.406-6, only the GSA contracting office may resolve disputes that, in whole or in part, involve interpretation of disputed schedule contract provisions. View "Sharp Elec. Corp. v. McHugh" on Justia Law

Plaintiff began working for Defendant as a salesperson in 2005. Defendant resigned from his employment in 2010 and signed a separation agreement before his departure. Defendant initially paid Plaintiff pursuant to the separation agreement but then claimed it had paid Plaintiff more than it agreed to and stopped payment on two of the checks it had issued. Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant for breach of contract, breach of quasi-contract, and unjust enrichment. A federal jury found that Defendant had breached its separation agreement with Plaintiff and that Plaintiff was entitled to $70,331 in quantum meruit damages from Defendant. After the jury verdict, Plaintiff moved the federal court to conclude that the the quantum meruit damages were "wages" within the meaning of 26 Me. Rev. Stat. 626. The federal court then certified a question to the Maine Supreme Court, which answered by holding (1) whether a quantum meruit recovery activates the penalty provision of section 626 depends on the services rendered; (2) if the services rendered are of the type for which an employee would have been due wages, then application of section 626 to a recovery in quantum meruit is appropriate; and (3) if not, section 626 would not apply. View "Dinan v. Alpha Networks Inc." on Justia Law

AgFirst Farmers Cooperative (AgFirst) sued Diamond C Dairy (Diamond) for cattle feed allegedly purchased by Diamond. Diamond admitted it owed AgFirst for some of the feed but contended that some shipments could have been sent to a facility in Ft. Dodge, Iowa that was owned by another company. The trial court disallowed this defense by refusing to allow Diamond to withdraw its admissions admitting that the feed had been delivered to its facility. Diamond also contended it did not owe AgFirst for some shipments because Diamond's facility did not have sufficient storage capacity to accommodate those loads of feed. The circuit court rejected this second defense and awarded AgFirst a money judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court's findings of fact were adequate to support its determination that there was sufficient storage space at Diamond's facility to have accepted AgFirst's deliveries; (2) the record was inadequate to determine whether the award of attorney's fees and expenses to AgFirst was appropriate; and (3) the court applied the wrong test in denying Diamond's request to withdraw admissions relating to the Ft. Dodge defense. Remanded for a new trial on that issue. View "AgFirst Farmers Coop. v. Diamond C Dairy, LLC" on Justia Law

Appellant and Appellees were engaged in a commercial real estate transaction. Appellant was unable to secure adequate financing to close the transaction, and Appellees retained his earnest money deposit. Appellant filed suit, and the circuit court entered summary judgment in favor of Appellees. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding (1) given that there was an ambiguity in the language of the contract regarding whether the earnest money clause constituted a proper liquidated damages provision, summary judgment in this case was inappropriate; (2) there was a question of genuine fact as to whether the amount of the earnest money deposit was reasonable or so unreasonably large that it was unenforceable on the grounds that public policy would deem it to be a penalty; and (3) if the deposit is deemed to be an unenforceable penalty, a constructive trust should have been established in order to protect the funds. View "Patel v. Tuttle Props., LLC" on Justia Law

This case arose from the sale of a truck by Appellant to Appellee. The parties executed a document titled "customer sales order" formalizing the deal that contained a binding arbitration provision. The provision failed to require the arbitration to be held in Kentucky but stated that the Federal Arbitration Act (Act) governed its interpretation and enforcement. After the truck was delivered, Appellee filed suit against Appellant, alleging fraud and intentional misrepresentation. The trial court denied Appellant's motion to compel arbitration under the arbitration clause. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that Kentucky courts have no jurisdiction to enforce an arbitration agreement unless the agreement provides that the arbitration will occur in Kentucky. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Appellant made a prima facie showing of an agreement requiring arbitration of the dispute between the parties; and (2) because that agreement stated that the Act controls, the circuit court had jurisdiction to enforce it, unless Appellee could meet its burden to show there was no valid agreement. View "MHC Kenworth-Knoxville/Nashville v. M & H Trucking, LLC" on Justia Law

Appellant issued a motorcycle insurance policy to Brian McCallum that contained accident and healthcare coverage. The policy included a provision for subrogation of payments made for any injury caused by a third party. After McCallum was involved in a collision with Margarita Saldivar, Appellant paid McCallum's medical expenses. Appellant then filed a complaint alleging Saldivar's negligence and seeking to receive subrogation benefits from Saldivar. The circuit court rejected Appellant's argument that it was entitled to subrogation benefits from Saldivar and granted summary judgment in Saldivar's favor. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding (1) the circuit court erred in its interpretation of the relevant statutes; and (2) Appellant properly sought general "subrogation benefits from the third party,'" as permitted by Ark. Stat. Ann. 23-79-146. View "Progressive Halcyon Ins. v. Saldivar" on Justia Law